You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

September 4, 2018

Vietnam: New Law on Competition Impacts IP

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

On June 12, 2018, Vietnam passed a new Law on Competition that will take effect on July 1, 2019, replacing the Law on Competition of 2004. The new law brings about several changes affecting intellectual property. Notably, it eliminates many of the discrepancies between the current 2004 Competition Law and the Intellectual Property Law in dealing with IP-related unfair competition.

Acts of Unfair Competition

A weakness of the 2004 Competition Law and its subordinate regulations (such as Decree No. 71/2014/ND-CP) is that they overlap with provisions on competition found in other laws. For example, both the 2004 Competition Law and the IP Law have provisions concerning acts of cybersquatting, the use of misleading trade indications, and the unauthorized use of a trademark by an agent, and both provide that the infringement of trade secrets is an act of unfair competition. This has led to confusion for law enforcement agencies and rights holders as to which enforcement mechanisms should be employed in taking action against unfair competition relating to IP.

The new Competition Law no longer sets out acts of unfair competition that are already covered by the IP Law. Instead, the new law expressly states that when there are discrepancies between the Competition Law and the related unfair competition provisions of another law, the provisions of the other law will prevail. This will be a big step toward clarifying who will enforce the laws on unfair competition in practice. When the new Competition Law takes force, rights holders can rely solely on the IP Law.

Secrets in Business

The new Competition Law seems to introduce a new statutory term, “secrets in business” (bí mật trong kinh doanh). The new law considers infringement of these “secrets in business” to amount to unfair competition, but it does not define this term. The term is similar to the statutory term “trade secret” (bí mật kinh doanh) defined in the IP Law. However, given the principle that the new law does not repeat acts of unfair competition provided in other laws, it is uncertain whether the term “secrets in business” has an equivalent meaning to “trade secret” in the IP Law, or is something entirely new. As a matter of practice, the government will roll out decrees to guide the implementation of new laws. In these decrees, the government should clarify the meaning of this term.

Court Jurisdiction

The prevailing competition laws defer to the Civil Code for resolving non-contractual damages related to unfair practices. Particularly, if unfair practices cause damage to the lawful rights and interests of others, the offenders are required to compensate for such loss in accordance with the civil laws. Under the Civil Procedure Code, disputes over compensation for non-contractual damage fall under the civil courts’ jurisdiction. To resolve these disputes, the court must assess the unfair competition acts as one of the bases for determining the damages.

The new Competition Law no longer expressly refers to the civil laws as the legal tools to deal with unfair competition, triggering concern about whether the civil court still has jurisdiction to rule on unfair competition. However, the new law does not expressly obviate the court’s jurisdiction over acts of unfair competition that cause harm to the legitimate rights and interests of competitors. In addition, the Law on Promulgation of Legal Documents prevents laws from repeating regulations that are mentioned in other laws. The civil laws already expressly allow companies to initiate suits to generally protect their rights and interests. Thus, the new Competition Law should be interpreted in a way not to preclude the court’s power to deal with acts of unfair competition.

Other Changes

The new law establishes a new state agency, the National Competition Commission, to be in charge of dealing with antitrust and unfair competition practices set out in the law. For unfair competition acts covered in other laws, the respective authorities empowered by such laws would have power. As such, to curb unfair competition under laws relating to IP, companies can rely on administrative enforcement bodies, civil courts, or arbitration as set forth in the IP Law.

The new law also shortens the timeframe for administrative bodies, namely the National Competition Commission, to deal with unfair competition. Under the new law, the maximum time is just 60 days, with an option to extend another 45 days. This would only apply to unfair competition acts not falling under the IP Law. On the whole, the new Competition Law marks progress in eradicating discrepancies between laws on competition and IP that have caused uncertainty for years. However, certain issues still need clarification, such as compulsory licensing and “secrets in business,” for the law to be easily implemented in practice.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Antitrust and Competition

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 31, 2025
The Madrid System for international trademark registration provides the opportunity for a simplified and cost-effective way to register trademarks in multiple countries through a single application. Indonesia joined the Madrid System in 2018, and in 2024 alone, it received over 8,600 applications through this system. Despite the system’s effectiveness, it is important for trademark owners to be aware of the potential risks of refusal that can arise during the process of registration. Trademark applicants must pay close attention to these critical points when designating Indonesia. Appointing a Local Representative to Respond An applicant or representative of an international registration (IR) application that has been provisionally refused must appoint a local Indonesian representative in order to submit a response to the provisional refusal. This appointment is solely for the purpose of responding to the refusal in Indonesia; it is not necessary if the IR has not received any rejection. Furthermore, the local representative should not be registered with WIPO, as doing so would affect representation across all designated countries. Timing When it comes to calculating the deadline for responding to a provisional refusal, there is a discrepancy between the methods used by the DGIP and WIPO. Under the Indonesian Trademark Law, trademark owners can file a response within 30 working days, excluding weekends and national holidays. However, the WIPO cover letter accompanying the DGIP’s provisional refusal notice specifies both the start date and the deadline for responding to the notification, which is calculated as 30 calendar days, including weekends and national holidays. Therefore, a response to the provisional refusal of IR should be submitted in accordance with the WIPO cover letter to prevent any formality issue. Grounds for Refusal After an IR application is published in Indonesia’s Trademark Gazette, it undergoes substantive examination by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) examiners. The
Read More
July 30, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for
Read More
July 25, 2025
Over the first half of 2025, the government of Vietnam has implemented a comprehensive suite of legislative reforms that significantly impact the country’s intellectual property (IP) framework. These amendments, most of which took effect on 1 July 2025, span the criminal, civil, administrative, and judicial sectors, and are part of a broader initiative to modernize Vietnam’s legal infrastructure, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and harmonize domestic regulations with international standards. A summary of the key legislative changes and their potential implications for IP protection and enforcement across Vietnam is provided below. Criminal Code: Stricter penalties Under the 2025 amendments to Vietnam’s Criminal Code, penalties for offenses involving the manufacturing and trading of counterfeit goods have been significantly escalated. Individuals convicted of such violations now face fines ranging from VND 200 million to VND 2 billion (approximately USD 7,700 to USD 77,000; up from VND 100 million to VND 1 billion). For corporate entities, the penalties are even more severe, with fines ranging from VND 2 billion to VND 40 billion (roughly USD 77,000 to USD 1.54 million; up from VND 1 billion to VND 20 billion). These heightened penalties reflect the government’s intensified efforts to deter counterfeit-related crimes and protect consumer rights. Law on Handling Administrative Violations: Extended statute of limitations and application of electronic procedure The statute of limitations for addressing administrative violations in the IP sector is still two years. However, in cases where such violations are referred by procedural authorities, this period is extended by one year. The time taken by these authorities to process the case is now included within the overall limitation period. In addition, the Law on Handling Administrative Violations facilitates the use of electronic procedures, provided that the necessary infrastructure, technical systems, and information conditions are in place. Specifically, enforcement authorities are now permitted
Read More
July 21, 2025
Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark’s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark’s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts. However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use – an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark’s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components. This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness. Background In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below for goods in Class 28, including toy building blocks: The registrar rejected the application on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which considered that, when the term ‘weplay’ is used for goods in Class 28, it is descriptive of the nature of the goods applied for as “playthings”. Therefore, ‘weplay’ was deemed nondistinctive under Section 7, Paragraph 2(2) of the Trademark Act. IP & IT Court decision In 2024 the IP & IT Court ruled that the term ‘weplay’ is not a coined or invented word; instead, it is a combination of ‘we’ and ‘play’, conveying the meaning of ‘we play’. When the term is used for goods in Class 28, it describes the nature of the goods as “playthings”. Consequently, the mark was deemed non-distinctive. However, the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff,
Read More